LR Classic 11 and MacOS 14.6

[ferness 261]

Noticing a new LR Classic update was available, I clicked on it . . . only to find it's not available to me.

My MacPro 5.1 has a hexcore 3.46 Ghz processor, 48 GB of RAM, an AMD Radeon HD 7950 with 3 GB of memory . . . and MacOS Mojave 10.14.6.

Basically, my MacPro 5.1 is everything I need in a desktop--unless I want to install the new LR Classic 11 update, which requires MacOS 10.15.  And Apple won't allow that unless I get a newer Mac.

I'm not feeling very gruntled about this.  Apparently, to make full use of my Photography Plan subscription, I need to buy a newer Mac that can run a newer iteration of MacOS (and an M1 processor, since the writing's on the wall) so I can run the latest iteration of LR Classic.

This reminds me yet again why I prefer to have an app in hand on a DVD or such.

Then again, I suppose I can still run the LR Classic, version 10.whatever, which works fine for me.  But it seems wrong to have to pay every month for new features that I can't run on my MacPro 5.1.  (Then again, I can still use all the cool fonts, right?  Oh, I shouldn't assume that.  I should check, shouldn't I?)

I can't be the only one adversely affected by this new system requirement.  And I'm wondering . . . is there any chance Adobe will step back and roll back the system requirements somehow?  Or maybe create a special LR Classic 10 plan especially for second-class Adobe/Mac citizens (which is pretty much what I feel like right now).

Just yesterday I was talking with my teenage son about one of the underlying problems of the modern world, the clamor for more of everything rather than contentment with enough.  My MacPro 5.1 is certainly enough for me.  I suppose that Lightroom Classic 10.whatever is, or will have to be, as well.

[johnrellis]

"This reminds me yet again why I prefer to have an app in hand on a DVD or such."

Having an "app in hand" on DVD wouldn't change your situation. How many older Mac OS versions Adobe chooses to support for the newest version of LR is independent of whether LR uses perpetual licensing or subscription licensing.  Ditto for Adobe's policy of not providing updates to older major versions.

"And I'm wondering . . . is there any chance Adobe will step back and roll back the system requirements somehow?  Or maybe create a special LR Classic 10 plan especially for second-class Adobe/Mac citizens (which is pretty much what I feel like right now)."

Looking at the 13 or so years of LR history, that seems very unlikely.  When Adobe releases a new major version, it has always ceased providing updates for previous major versions.

"And Apple won't allow that unless I get a newer Mac."

I think most of your beef should be with Apple. Compared with Windows, Mac OS stops supporting older hardware more aggressively. Not surprising, considering Apple's vertical business model is hardware-driven and has obvious incentives to encourage customers to buy newer hardware. (I'm a longtime Mac user.)

Apple also tends to deprecate older OS internals faster than Microsoft, which increases the costs for software developers to support older OS versions.

The advantage of the Apple approach is that Mac OS doesn't accumulate nearly as much of old legacy cruft as Windows.

[ferness 261]

Thanks, John.  You're right on every count.  Which I think I knew, but . . . well, I suppose I felt like venting.

Apple definitely wants to sell new stuff.  Profit based on planned obsolesence--the business model of the digital age.  

But I'm glad I went with a refurbed Mac Pro when I did nine years ago since so much of it is upgradeable.  But at some point, that comes to a shuddering halt.  But it's lasted all this while, and I love having old OS versions on different partitions, just in case I need something from the past.  (I've read there's a way to get Thunderbolt on the Mac Pro 5.1, but I haven't tried that.  Haven't done the bit of soldering to allow for the latest wi-fi speeds, either.  I suppose my surplus of time is greater than the state of my soldering skills. . . .)

The inability to upgrade to 10.15 didn't bother me very much, not until now.  And if I wind up sticking with LR 10.4, that will be fine, too, even if I miss out on the new masking abilities.

One VERY cool thing I learned from your reply is the word "cruft."  I wasn't familiar with it, but I am now.  What a great word, one with lots of potential use since there's so much cruft out there. . . .  🙂

[johnrellis]

I didn't realize, or had forgotten, "cruft" was a piece of jargon from a narrow part of the tech community. I must have learned it back in the 1970s and forgotten where. 

My turn to vent: A couple of years ago, Apple stopped supporting 32-bit programs in Mac OS, and I had to spend $500 for a new Fuji Scansnap document scanner and associated software, even though the old scanner and software were working just fine. (Fuji didn't want to rewrite the 32-bit drivers for the 8-year-old hardware, I guess). 

Windows still runs old 32-bit programs. It still runs DOS programs! But I'm on Mac because I got tired of Windows' cruft.  So the $500 was a cruft-avoidance tax.

[ferness 261]

Yup, I remember that shift from 32-bit to 64-bit. I understand it, I suppose. I mean, when I got my first Mac, a G5 way back in 2004, it was supposed to run 64-bit stuff, but there was next to nothing that was 64-bit on the market. At least that’s how I’m remembering it. (Before that, I had a Windows machine with a 233 Pentium processor, running Windows NT4.0. I once brought it back from the blue screen of death by being very patient and methodical—though what I did, I sure can’t remember now.)

I think right now I have three MacOS partitions: Mojave 10.14.6, El Capitan, and Snow Leopard 6.8. I just need to hold down the option key during start up after the tone, and there are all the different OS options. (I’ll bet I have some other MacOS iterations in different partitions on hard drives that are in semi-retirement, too.) I expect I could get that Fuji ScanSnap and its driver working in Snow Leopard, if nowhere else. But I think El Capitan was still 32-bit friendly, wasn’t it? Wasn’t it before Big Sur? (It’s hard to keep them straight. . . .)

But that’s one reason I love my MacPro: lots of different drives, lots of different partitions. The drives aren’t hot-swappable, but I have quite a few drives, each mounted on its own sled, ready to put to use after a shutdown.

And . . . I wonder if Hamrick’s VueScan would work with the Fuji ScanSnap. . . . Let me see. . . . Oh, don’t hate me for pointing this out:

https://www.hamrick.com/scansnap-mac-os-big-sur-software.html

I forget how much VueScan costs, but it works well with my old Nikon CoolScan, and apparently it works with the SnapScan, too. And I think once you buy it, you get all the subsequent updates for free. But you can check the site. . . .

When I looked up “cruft,” I noticed that it originated in the 1950s. It really is a cool word.

I will say that this is a pretty cool bit of the Adobe LR or CC community, being able to email someone to talk backchannel.

Anyway . . . take care, and good luck with all the Apple and Adobe updates!

Nath ( ferness 261 )

[Bob Somrak]

Yes, Vuescan keeps my Minolta Dimage 5400 Slide scanner going on Big Sur.  I was using Windows XP when I first bought it.  

[johnrellis]

"I wonder if Hamrick’s VueScan would work with the Fuji ScanSnap"

The Scansnap is a high-speed document scanner with a sheet feeder, and I use it with the Devonthink document-management software.  So Vuescan (which is a great program) wouldn't really help me with my document management :-<

[ferness 261]

Sigh.  It was a thought.  But that's pretty specialized, especially when I know the things Devon software is capable of!

[Lumigraphics]

Your computer is far out of support, and Apple will be dropping support (including security updates) for Mojave soon if they haven't already.

The Mac Pro 5,1 was introduced in 2010 and discontinued in 2012. A US$600 M1 Mac mini has 3x the single core and 1.5x the multi core performance of the very highest-end dual processor Mac Pro of that generation, FWIW.

[ferness 261]

Yes, I was thinking of looking more closely at a Mac Mini.  I know the M1 is faster, for sure, but I didn't know the exact numbers since I haven't checked Geekbench or Everymac lately.  I'll probably do that soon.

As for the Mac Pro 5.1, yes I know when it was made, what it can do, and what it can't do.  I know it has no support from Mac, and I'm sure you're right that Mojave, just three years old, will be out of support soon (if it isn't already).  I know what I've maxed out on it and what I can't improve any further without lots of difficulty and consternation.

But it works, and works well, for what I do.  For still photography and music (on the scale I produce it, that is), it's fine.  I know there are faster machines--how could there not be after nine years?--but I don't particularly feel the need or desire to own one: I can work and think only so fast, for one thing.  I know, too, that there are others whose processing needs are far, far greater than mine, others who can multitask circles around me.  That's fine, and I can see why they need the newest and fastest machines.  I don't need the newest and fastest, though I know the improvements in LR Classic are things that would make my editing life easier, and that will require something different on my desktop.

I didn't think Adobe or Apple would drop everything else and tend to my particular wants and needs.  I know that I'm not part of their real market.  I think I just felt a need to vent a bit.

But again, I will be looking into the Mac Mini, which has always been an attractive machine.  It certainly wouldn't take up much room in my little office, that's for sure!

[Lumigraphics]

I had to upgrade my 2011-era iMac and Mini, I still have my 2011 MacBook Pro 13" on Mojave (patched to install) when I don't want to haul my 15" MBP around. I'm gonna have to upgrade my 2015 machines soon as well, though. Its just how upgrade cycles are.

[ferness 261]

I had to edit something or other in my son's MBP that Apple said couldn't run Windows 10 in a bootcamp drive.  I opened text edit, I think it was, and convinced the MBP that it could, indeed, allow and run Win 10.

And not long before your above post, I found that there's a patch I can install in order to download and run MacOS 10.15 Catalina.  So it's good to know that patches can work, as your older machines running Mojave attest!  If I do it though, I'm leaving Mojave as is and installing Catalina on a different drive and partition, just in case.  But maybe the newest LR Classic updates are within my reach after all.

Thanks for confirming that such things can work, even though it's a different MacOS in your situation!

Oh.  I just ran the tests, and my MacPro fares a little better in Geekbench 5 than the stock examples in EveryMac, thanks to the CPU, graphics, and RAM upgrades, though the new M1 Mini outpaces it by a wide margin.  It's almost scary.  (No:  it is scary.)